High CourtsSingle Bench

Devendra Pathak vs State of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 8 July 2014 · Citation: (2014) 07 MP CK 0126

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.K. Paliwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 363, 366, 376 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4 · Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2)(v)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M.Cr.C. No. 5087/2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 550 words

D.K. Paliwal, J.—Heard.

2.

This is second bail application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. First application has been dismissed vide order dated 1.5.2014 in M.Cr.C. No. 2158/2014. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No. 184/2013 registered at Police Station A.J.K. Nateran, District Vidisha for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC, section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

3.

As per prosecution case, complainant has lodged the report that his sister was sleeping in a room in the morning he saw that his sister was missing. On this, missing report was recorded. During enquiry, it was found that Devendra Pathak has kidnapped his sister. Hence, offence was registered. During investigation, the victim was traced. She stated that Devendra Pathak used to talk her. He telephoned her and called her then she came out from her house. Devendra told her that he would marry with her and took her to Basoda. Thereafter, Bhopal and Betul, where has taken a room on rent and committed rape on her. She stayed with him about eight months in the room. Thereafter, he solemnized marriage with her. When she came to know that the matter has been reported to Police then she alongwith Devendra appeared in the Police station.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has not committed any offence. He has falsely implicated in the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that after rejection of the first bail application, charge-sheet has been filed and in the radiological examination the age of the victim has been found to be 18 years. The applicant is under custody since 19.2.2014. Hence, the applicant be released on bail.

5.

The application is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

6.

Case diary perused.

7.

Considering that the age of the victim determined by the radiological examination as 18 years and the fact that the applicant is under custody since 19.2.2014, but without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

8.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

1.

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2.

The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3.

The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4.

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5.

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6.

The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

9.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

10.

C.C. as per rules.